On 17/02/2014 15:47, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2014-02-17 12:24 +0000), Phil Mayers wrote:
So nothing has changed except we know about it. For anyone who
assumed devices could fail at any time, this isn't *that* worrying.
For anyone who assumed devices would run forever, this should be a
wake-up call - it was never true, and will likely never be so ;o)
Should we expect devices to be build so that broken memory is detected and
reported to operator? Or is it OK that broken memory is undetected and mangles
packets without us being aware?
As someone else has pointed out, the Cisco description is of a sudden
hard failure triggered by a power cycle, not some kind of progressive
degradation AFAICT.
Do you have information to the contrary?
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
